Definitely naive. Honest, I do not “anything personal” when I say that ... (a) this project was and always has been “an abstract exercise in programming-language design,” and (b) that it missed-the-boat almost from the beginning by being unable to standardize (and, importantly, to own) its runtime foundation. (It frankly looks to me like there were “lots of committees and no decisions;” that it’s been that way for a decade; that it’s still that way.)

Let’s say, not-too hypothetically, that I own a company whose star client budgets $4+ million a year to keep in 24/7/365 operation a system that runs their warehouse, as well as another system which once-an-hour rebalances the inventory demand projections which determine which product mix is shipped to what store through all of its warehouses. All of which runs right-now on Perl-5, so “That is The Bar.” And yet, here you are seemingly ecstatic that this Parrot thing runs 40(!) times slower than the well-known pig that runs Java?!

I’ve made the comment before: a worthy-successor to Perl-5 must be driven by actual developer-demand (not an abstract notion of what would be Kewel ...), must be fully and provably backward compatible with the now-vast installed base, and in every way must assuage the overwhelming deal-breaker consideration of business risk.

If you “take it personally,” you’re taking my comment the wrong way. This is pure business.Billions of dollars of it.

Comment on
Re^2: A $dayjob Perl 6 program that runs 40x faster on the JVM than on Parrot